Vote on arresting Bush, Cheney

[Michael Tee]

<<In other words.........WISHING he (& others) were dead.   oy>>

Yes, sirs - - WISHING he (& others) were dead.  AND pointing out the advantages thereby to be gained in national security by 300,000,000 Americans.  Double oy.

<<[Shrill cries of protest over the attempted suppression of speech or Constitutional rights happen] anytime anyone dares criticizes the likes of John Kerry, or any other politician with a military background.>>

Really?  Because I don't recall anyone raising a First Amendment or Constitutional rights issue over the criticism of anyone with a military background.  Perhaps you could give one single example of something you seem to think happens all the time?  Because otherwise, we're going to have to conclude that you're all fulla shit.  As always.

<<Yep, gotta love that Hypocrisy>>

As I said before, sirs, you gotta find it before you can love it.  And find it in the REAL WORLD, not in the raving delusions of a crypto-fascist "mind."

[fatman]

I understood this from the beginning, Fatman. We disagree. I doubt the world will stop revolving because we disagree. No problem...

True enough Prof.  I do like the ability to disagree cordially though.

In support of Marrage the Government has given certain priveledges to the married.

Why?  What does the Constitution say about marriage, gay, straight, or polygamous?

There is a long list of these priveledges , but Marrage predates our government , might predate government itself , and doesn't need the government's help to exist.

But it needs the governments help to protect it from homosexuals?  (Constitutional Amendments)

As long as the government doesn't do things harmfull to marrage , it is all good.

What possible harm can government do to marriage?  It's been around forever (above) so I don't buy into the idea that because some homosexuals marry each other that it's suddenly under assault and about to fall into this morass of depravity.

Lets allow anyone to designate a power of atturny to a single other person of his choice , and to this coupleing let the tax advantage, the right to speak for , the right to visit in hospital and all other appropriate rights attached to marrage ,give.

Why not?  What business of yours is it?  Because Soon every gangster in the county will have "married " hs bookeeper?  That's a straw man argument and we both know it.  How many husbands and wives marry each other to further their criminal enterprises?  Relatively few I would imagine, I don't see how it would be different with gay marriage.

Oh well , unintended consequences are oten more important than the intended ones.

So the best policy is to always do nothing because it may have unintended consequences more important than the original?  That's hogwash plane and we both know that too.

[The_Professor]

"No, someone wishing you were dead is NOT the same as threatening to kill you"

Actually, not be be legalistic, but according to the Lion of Judah, it could. After all, He said if you lust at a woman, then it is the same thing as "knowing" her. So, could not it be the same analogy here?

<< stirring the pot >>

[_JS]

   "Disdain for culture & society" huh?  Rings right up there with how all Republicans want women to die of Cancer.  I kinda thought better of you, Js.  Perhaps I was mistaken.  Or is your definition of disdain different than ...... most everyone else?

If you read what I write, as opposed to reading what you wish I'd write, you'll note that I said it still lingers amongst the right-wing today. I never said it is common or prevalent. Yet, there are those that take the very attitude of Goering.  Rich, just by reading what he writes, is an excellent example.

There are fringe elements to every ideology Js.  But to imply some generalized "disdain for culture & society" by the RW is pretty egregious.  Let's match that by saying the Left despises and loathes our military.  That's accurate, right?

Sirs, I'm having difficulty understanding your point here. What I said is that the Fascist disdain for culture still lingers amongst the right wing. I never said that it is "pervasive" or "common." I used the verb "to linger" specifically.

Now, let's look at your sentence: "the Left despises and loathes our military"

Notice the difference? It is not parallel to mine in any way. Your sentence is universal to anyone in "the Left."

I don't understand why you are so defensive Sirs. I did not make a broad sweeping generalization as you just did.

[The_Professor]

Js, perhaps Sirs means that the Left does not tend to admire and/or respect the military appropriately.

"Blessed are the peacemakers...":

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that if you do not try to have a gay couple arrested or do not stone one or both of them, you are condoning homosexuality.
If you just leave them alone, even if you do not approve of them being married or in some sort of legal union, you are condoning homosexuality. If you do not speak out against gthe homosexual couple, you are condoning them.

I am all for condoning any activity that  does not interrupt my private enjoyment of life, bit I think it is a bit lazy and perhaps even cowardly if you fundie types think you are doing the Lord's Work by spouting it from the Bible in this forum and not doing the same out in the real world.

It's like Juniorbush saying that it is enough to refuse to fund stem cell research in defense of 'innocent human life'. If it is really that bad, he should try to get it banned altogether.

[Rich]

>>And the right is trying to turn it into some faith based, theocratic version of their utopia.<<

Could you please explain this? Can you sight some examples of government action that supports such a ridiculous claim? Remember now, you're charges with sighting actual litigation to turn America into a theocracy.

[Rich]

>>I do believe the government should reflect my beliefs, and I am not a conservative Christian, so the government shouldn't have any say regarding homosexuality.<<

You obviously do or you wouldn't want the government to santion homosexual marriage. Nobody is stopping you, find someone to marry you.

[Rich]

>>Why should the government not condone marriage between homosexuals?<<

Why shouldn't the government condone polygamy?

Why shouldn't it condone it between siblings?

[Rich]

>>No actually there was a very real threat.<<

I swear, this place is loaded with pretentious thumbsucking liberals. They see fascists everywhere! It would be nice however, if they had the slightest clue what a fascist was, but that's really too much to ask. Hell, they don't even understand the meaning of the word threat let alone a complicated political philosophy and it's history.

You also get a glimpse at what it would be like if our local communists, fascist, and liberals  actually got hold of power. The guy they're discussing here would be locked up, as would I, sirs, and anybody who disagreed with them. It's the thought that counts to our communists/fascist/liberal members, and that's enough to condemn you as a Nazi and put you away. Just like Good old Uncle Joe, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest of their hero's.

Listen to what the real fascists say folks. They're showing their hands in her everyday.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They're showing their hands in her everyday.

===================================
Yeah! and if they don't keep their hands to themselves and out of her everyday, she will slap them silly!

[yellow_crane]

>>No actually there was a very real threat.<<

I swear, this place is loaded with pretentious thumbsucking liberals. They see fascists everywhere! It would be nice however, if they had the slightest clue what a fascist was, but that's really too much to ask. Hell, they don't even understand the meaning of the word threat let alone a complicated political philosophy and it's history.

You also get a glimpse at what it would be like if our local communists, fascist, and liberals  actually got hold of power. The guy they're discussing here would be locked up, as would I, sirs, and anybody who disagreed with them. It's the thought that counts to our communists/fascist/liberal members, and that's enough to condemn you as a Nazi and put you away. Just like Good old Uncle Joe, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest of their hero's.

Listen to what the real fascists say folks. They're showing their hands in her everyday.

Even fiction should not confound logic.

You grab and mix willy-nilly, and pretty soon your whole picture of politics is an Alice in Wonderland hodge podge of contradiction and confusion.

To begin at the beginning:  fascism is a phenomenon of the right in politics, and your continual insistence to the contrary makes some wonder if you really understand even the most basic substructure of the whole business.

[yellow_crane]

>>Why should the government not condone marriage between homosexuals?<<

Why shouldn't the government condone polygamy?

Why shouldn't it condone it between siblings?

Or, to personalize to your particular case, why shouldn't the government condone throwing away the baby and raising the afterbirth?

[Plane]

>>Why should the government not condone marriage between homosexuals?<<

Why shouldn't the government condone polygamy?

Why shouldn't it condone it between siblings?

Or, to personalize to your particular case, why shouldn't the government condone throwing away the baby and raising the afterbirth?

It seems that they do , Abortion is the most protected right we have ever had, my right to own a firearm or speak my mind has exceptions , no sort of Abortion , no reason for abortion , is unprotected.

[Plane]

I understood this from the beginning, Fatman. We disagree. I doubt the world will stop revolving because we disagree. No problem...

True enough Prof.  I do like the ability to disagree cordially though.

In support of Marrage the Government has given certain priveledges to the married.

Why?  What does the Constitution say about marriage, gay, straight, or polygamous?

There is a long list of these priveledges , but Marrage predates our government , might predate government itself , and doesn't need the government's help to exist.

But it needs the governments help to protect it from homosexuals?  (Constitutional Amendments)

As long as the government doesn't do things harmfull to marrage , it is all good.

What possible harm can government do to marriage?  It's been around forever (above) so I don't buy into the idea that because some homosexuals marry each other that it's suddenly under assault and about to fall into this morass of depravity.

Lets allow anyone to designate a power of atturny to a single other person of his choice , and to this coupleing let the tax advantage, the right to speak for , the right to visit in hospital and all other appropriate rights attached to marrage ,give.

Why not?  What business of yours is it?  Because Soon every gangster in the county will have "married " hs bookeeper?  That's a straw man argument and we both know it.  How many husbands and wives marry each other to further their criminal enterprises?  Relatively few I would imagine, I don't see how it would be different with gay marriage.

Oh well , unintended consequences are oten more important than the intended ones.

So the best policy is to always do nothing because it may have unintended consequences more important than the original?  That's hogwash plane and we both know that too.

Try not to mix My responses with the Professors , we have slightly diffrent points of view and I hate to loose the nuance.

The government has seen it to be in the governments interest to forbid marrage in several circumstances , close relitives , interspecies , single sex, corpses , bigamists , underage.  The act involved may be forbidden or not , but the sanction of marrage is withheld, do all the people who want to have non-traditional marrages feel that they are repressed and ill treated ? Because I have the right to marry a woman but not a horse is there an inequality twards those who would rather marry a horse?

Why does the government have an intrest  in preventing any of these catagorys of non traditional marrage?

If someone wanted to marry many underage horses of the same sex as he , and of course we are talking of dead horses , who is hurt? What business is it of the governments?